Des Pardes

Samir Sahni is a farmer living with his mom, dad, wife, Rama, a young daughter, and his younger brother, Veer. Samir gets an offer to work in the U.K., and departs accordingly. He would like to settle there, and after doing so, would like his family to also join him. The years go by, and Samir keeps in touch with his family regularly. Then the Sahni family stop receiving any letters from him, and are anxious to know what has happened to him. Veer is asked to travel to U.K. to find out, and he does so. What he finds are tens of thousands of East Indians on fake passports, working for less than minimum wages, poor unhealthy conditions, fear of being deported, and paying half of their earnings to fellow East Indians who had got them here through the underground. Veer finds no sign of his brother, and sets out to investigate, only to find deceit, murder, and his very own life in danger. Written by rAjOo ([email protected])

Samir Sahni is a farmer living with his mom, dad, wife, Rama, a young daughter, and his younger brother, Veer. Samir gets an offer to work in the U.K., and departs accordingly. He would ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

Ravan Florentin P (de) wrote: every1 is a sociopath, this probably makes people feel normal remeber you are NOT!

Vikram S (gb) wrote: shreya is the saving grace - she is hot and cute at the same time - be sure not to miss the quick gun murugun climax -> matrix-like stunts amidst flying currency from the rooftop - stuff that the bad guy was supposedly hiding ... he didn't quite foresee windy days

Josh D (ru) wrote: what the fuck canada?

Clare N (kr) wrote: Not as good as the Water Horse!!!

Afal S (kr) wrote: Alternative History Aussie-style! Children of the Revolution poses a similar counter-factual to Robert Harris' novel Archangel, what if Stalin had a secret son? But whereas Harris approached the question from a thriller angle, director Duncan has gone for comedy. But there is a large range in comedy, and I felt Duncan didn't know quite at what levelto pitch the film at. And so there are is a lot of tedious slapstick, particularly in the early Russian scenes, in among the more involved satirical (and much more promising) scenes, and a lot of the humour is over-sweetened. I also felt the varying tone of the comedy was part of a wider vacillation in the film. For one thing there is no firm central character. Judy Davis' mother starts off as the central character but is usurped to support (where she is best in this) with the late arrival of Roxburgh as young Aussie Joe Stalin. Also, the whole film-within-a-film cultural critique thing seemed forced and unnecessary. If the director could only have cut down on the silliness and sweetness, as well as some of his archness, and settled down in Australia among the crazy but strangely believable Welch family. The rise of young Stalin in Australia, from callow delinquent to cold-blooded plotter, as he takes on the behavioural traits of the man of steel and his notorious physiognomy, is wonderfully well-handled. Davis reaches her natural age (and beyond) with aplomb (she is just too old to play a naive youth), and forms a genuine mother-son relationship with Roxburgh, entering halfway as the adult young Joe Welch (and Stalin). On top of this, the Welch family is extended to include not only the ghost of F Murray Abraham's wonderful Stalin, but Sam Neill's Double Spy (who slept with Joan on the same night as Stalin and thinks he's the real father), as well as Geoffrey Rush as Joan's repressed husband, and Brenda Griffith, who is good despite being given a dud character (Joe's wife). It all sounds unbelievable, but the extended Welch family does work and Duncan should have had more faith in the viewer and his own characters.

Calvin R (us) wrote: Pulse is definetly one of the worst remake in the horror genre. Its a stale, boring, cliche of a mess. However the visuals were pretty good.

Judy K (au) wrote: Corny, older than the hills plot but engaging fluff for a look back at the eighties.

Wes S (ca) wrote: A bit of a gimmick with the false marketing, but it's kind of an interesting parallel. But not interesting enough, the pacing is bad and there isn't enough going on throughout. The characters get dull and the film ends rather uninspired.

Ernestas J (kr) wrote: I never going to get bored from watching this movie. Definitely it's the best "Laika's" movie in all ways, in my opinion. One of the best animated movie's of all time. 10/10.

Brenden K (jp) wrote: I think a very specific group of people would enjoy this movie, and I don't think I'm one of them. It had some highlights, with some of the jokes hitting bullseye...while others completely missed the target. It's tolerable, most of the time anyways, so I would put this in the "meh" category. Like I said, this was made a specific group of people, not to mention it is slightly outdated.

Larry M (jp) wrote: Great classic SCI-FI/HORROR movie.A nearly indestructible creature stows away on a spaceship headed back to earth.The crew must find a way to destroy it or be killed themselves. An original movie,from an era dominated by nuculear paranoia and giant bug movies.The movie that paved the way for Alien.

Chris B (gb) wrote: Hello, My Name Is Doris is an uncomfortable viewing experience, one which is made slightly more bearable due to Sally Fields phenomenal performance. The film revolves around a woman well past retirement age, who falls in love with a much younger coworker. What starts out as a minor crush descends into full on obsession, and from that point on, the movie is filled with awkward situation after awkward situation. It is hard to look past this, because so often I was cringing at the actions of the characters on screen that I was doing everything I could to not be in the moment with them. The script is mediocre, with characters who don't feel fleshed out, and the film lacks an identity beyond cringe inducing moments. Doris herself is such an odd character that she steals the spotlight in every scenario, but she is also so delusional that she can be off-putting. I can't really recommend the film, as I didn't enjoy my time watching it, but it isn't a bad film either. As mentioned Sally Fields is spectacular, but her character is so off-the-rails that I couldn't relate. 2.5 out of 5 stars.